Thai Baan Methodology and Transdisciplinarity as Collaborative Research Practices: Common Ground and Divergent Directions

Alexandra Heis, C. Vaddhanaphuti
{"title":"Thai Baan Methodology and Transdisciplinarity as Collaborative Research Practices: Common Ground and Divergent Directions","authors":"Alexandra Heis, C. Vaddhanaphuti","doi":"10.14764/10.ASEAS-0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thai Baan research was developed in the late 1990s as a counter-hegemonic, emancipatory means of knowledge production. Originally developed in the context of protests against a hydropower project, it aims at empowering socially and economically marginalized actors to create and represent their own knowledge and to regain authority in social struggles. This decolonial methodology, conceptualized by Thai academics in collaboration with non-academic actors, has remained largely unnoticed by Northern collaborative or transdisciplinary debates. Transdisciplinary research, although engaged in collaborative research designs, often remains silent on issues of power imbalances as constitutive of research processes. Criticizing the compartmentalization and limitation of academic knowledge production, transdisciplinarity realigns the scientific system of knowledge production to deal with ‘real-world problems’. During the last three decades, transdisciplinarity has unfolded into a collaborative and integrative methodology implemented in a number of fields, such as sustainability, public health, and development planning. This article systematically introduces Thai Baan and transdisciplinarity as two approaches to collaborative research practice. It introduces the context of their emergence, sheds light on the respective notions of knowledge and science, and discusses their respective methodological designs. It is argued that both would benefit from a stronger epistemological foundation in decolonizing, liberating philosophies of science to enhance collaborative action, overcome North-South divisions, and foster global dialogues in emancipatory knowledge production.","PeriodicalId":37990,"journal":{"name":"Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14764/10.ASEAS-0040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Thai Baan research was developed in the late 1990s as a counter-hegemonic, emancipatory means of knowledge production. Originally developed in the context of protests against a hydropower project, it aims at empowering socially and economically marginalized actors to create and represent their own knowledge and to regain authority in social struggles. This decolonial methodology, conceptualized by Thai academics in collaboration with non-academic actors, has remained largely unnoticed by Northern collaborative or transdisciplinary debates. Transdisciplinary research, although engaged in collaborative research designs, often remains silent on issues of power imbalances as constitutive of research processes. Criticizing the compartmentalization and limitation of academic knowledge production, transdisciplinarity realigns the scientific system of knowledge production to deal with ‘real-world problems’. During the last three decades, transdisciplinarity has unfolded into a collaborative and integrative methodology implemented in a number of fields, such as sustainability, public health, and development planning. This article systematically introduces Thai Baan and transdisciplinarity as two approaches to collaborative research practice. It introduces the context of their emergence, sheds light on the respective notions of knowledge and science, and discusses their respective methodological designs. It is argued that both would benefit from a stronger epistemological foundation in decolonizing, liberating philosophies of science to enhance collaborative action, overcome North-South divisions, and foster global dialogues in emancipatory knowledge production.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为合作研究实践的泰班方法论与跨学科:共同点与分歧方向
泰国Baan研究是在20世纪90年代末作为一种反霸权的、解放的知识生产手段而发展起来的。它最初是在反对水电项目的抗议活动中发展起来的,目的是赋予社会和经济边缘化的行动者权力,使他们能够创造和代表自己的知识,并在社会斗争中重新获得权威。这种由泰国学者与非学术行为者合作提出的非殖民化方法在很大程度上仍未被北方合作或跨学科辩论所注意。跨学科研究虽然从事合作研究设计,但往往对作为研究过程组成部分的权力不平衡问题保持沉默。跨学科批判了学术知识生产的划分和限制,重新调整了知识生产的科学系统来处理“现实世界的问题”。在过去的三十年中,跨学科已经发展成为一种协作和综合的方法,在许多领域实施,如可持续性,公共卫生和发展规划。本文系统地介绍了合作研究实践中的两种方法——泰铢模式和跨学科模式。它介绍了它们出现的背景,阐明了知识和科学的各自概念,并讨论了它们各自的方法设计。本文认为,在非殖民化和解放科学哲学方面,双方都将受益于更强大的认识论基础,以加强合作行动,克服南北分歧,促进解放知识生产的全球对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies
Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊介绍: The Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies (ASEAS) is an international, interdisciplinary and open access social sciences journal covering a variety of topics (culture, economics, geography, politics, society) from both historical and contemporary perspectives. Topics should be related to Southeast Asia, but are not restricted to the geographical region, when spatial and political borders of Southeast Asia are crossed or transcended, e.g., in the case of linguistics, diaspora groups or forms of socio-cultural transfer. ASEAS publishes two focus issues per year and we welcome out-of-focus submissions at any time. The journal invites both established as well as young scholars to present research results and theoretical and methodical discussions, to report about on-going research projects or field studies, to publish conference reports, to conduct interviews with experts in the field, and to review relevant books. Articles can be submitted in German or English.
期刊最新文献
Legal Reforms in Protecting Migrant Workers’ Welfare in Malaysia: Labor Law and Social Security Social Media, Fake News, and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Sketching the Case of Southeast Asia Marginalized Minorities in Malaysia? A Case Study of a Demolished Estate Hindu Temple in Penang Malaysia-News - eine Facebook-Gruppe: Ein Erfahrungsbericht in Social Media Nutzung Social Media in Research on a Marginalized Identity: The Case of Atheism in Indonesia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1